Quite right! As I'm sure you know, the turnip wouldn't be around for winter either since it would have been harvested. However other trees and
vegetation that don't shed their chlorophyll during the winter continue to absorb atmospheric CO2

There are a lot of gaps in our history. Its one of the most fascinating things about being human, we honestly don't have the whole story yet. To us
right now it seems like civilization just came out of the blue and so many conjure up stories of aliens, deities, Atlantis, anything and everything
but I think if we could go back we'd find a much more simple truth.

Of course in the meantime its fun to speculate.

Was this sudden rise in carbon caused by a flood (the same flood that nearly all ancient civilizations recall) or were aliens holding monster truck
rallies on Earth

A slight warming trend and change in sea level could make undersea methane hydrate deposits unstable and cause release of large quantities of methane
gas. There is geological evidence of such events on the sea floor.

these dates coincide with the birth of cities and civilisations... rather than with self based dependancy. my guess is we went from 5 cows for me to
500 cows 5 for me, 10 for breeding and the rest for the city officials or markets....

mesopotamia birth was 6000 bc ... about 8000 years ago, fits perfectly with your carbon rise. methane and c02 from livestock production on
civilisation scales rather than subsitance scales.

I have always believed the flood was responsible for a lot of our mysteries. Continental drift, the reason we find find fossils of marine live at
places that are 3500 ft above sea level, and I have always believed it caused an atmospheric change that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Haven't read all the posts, but I can't help but think of Thomas Brophy's speculations about some of the megalithic alignments of the Nabta Playa.

Their alignments correspond to several stars in the constellation of Orion, and their distances, calculated by a scaling of succesive prime numbers,
show the distances to those stars, the distances of secondary bodies orbiting those stars, the radial velocities of those stars, and the orbital
velocities of those secondary bodies. Some other excavated sites, specifically 'complex structure A' shows the Milky Way galaxy and where we are in
it, and a second stone perhaps shows the background radiation of the universe, according to him. He has a compelling argument, but there are some
missing links, IMO. But the numbers are there and fit the alignments at least.

I won't go into details because it's pretty thick with astronomical data/numbers and should be a thread on it's own, but if his calculations and
speculations are correct, then how did these people know this without the aid of advanced technology? Perhaps we were much more knowledgable and
advanced than what is currently thought/accepted.

During the last ice age there was a comet impact about 12,900 years ago.

This caused a even colder period(Younger Dryas event) that dropped the sea levels more.
This caused the sea pressure on sea bed methane deposits to loss there stable pressure that hold them as methane slush on the sea floor.

This cause a period of global warming.
As the ice sheet of the ice age melted this released even more methane that was trapped under the ice sheet and cause even more global warming.
This lasted till about 8000 years ago and then we had another turn around and another period of global cooling due to low solar activity.
At this 8000 year mark the temperatures were about 3 degrees C higher then they are now.
After that the earth had a number of major volcano eruptions that cooled the plant even more.
Just a few of the 'major'(over 100 million tons Ejecta[MTE]) eruptions for refraince Krakatau Indonesia was small putting out only 20+ million
tons

Crater Lake, Oregon Mount Mazama 7,700 years ago. 100+MTE
Aniakchak Caldera 3,450 years ago. 100+MTE
Mount Pinatubo 9000, 6000–5000 and 3900–2300 years ago. 100+MTE each time.
Kikai Ryukyu Islands, Japan 6300 years ago 100+MTE
We have not had a volcano of this size and type erupt in the last 200 years.

Plus about 8000 years ago the ocean currents restarted after the last ice age this would have cooled the tropic waters and warmed the polar waters
in the way they are now.

Without this current the polar waters grow even colder and cause a growth in the ice caps to ice age size.
And the hotter then normal tropic waters feed more moisture to the polar ice caps. This was why you had 2+ mile thick ice over Canada the last ice
age.

MAN HAD nothing to DO with any of this.
and man is not causing global warming now.

ANNED, after reading this post, I had a bit of an epiphany... I wonder how likely it would be that as some methane pockets were released, they
bubbled up, onlt to be trapped under and within the glaciers. Then as a gradual warming occurred, there would be occasional bursts of immense methane
pockets which would contribute to sudden, possibly even catastrophic global warming.

Could have been eruptions. Also I have heard it speculated that an impact occurred in Siberia around 7,500 yrs ago. This could have effected global
CO2 levels, as the Siberian forests are a huge Oxygen producer/CO2 sink. 7,500 years ago it was quite a bit hotter than present day, perhaps this
resulted in desertification/forest fires etc etc etc. There is no way to know for sure.

We have evidence of modern humans from at least 100k years ago en.wikipedia.org... There is a ton of evidence that suggests these
early humans were religious, but I really doubt they were Jews (Although these fossils do come from Israel). P.S. These folks had fire/pottery the
whole nine yards.

Here are some Homo sapiens fossils from 190,000 + yrs ago en.wikipedia.org... These remains make Ethiopia the current choice for
the cradle of humankind. Of course the Dali Man fossils in China are 200,000+ yrs old en.wikipedia.org...(fossil) and is believed to be
an early representation of Homo sapiens.

ANNED, after reading this post, I had a bit of an epiphany... I wonder how likely it would be that as some methane pockets were released, they
bubbled up, onlt to be trapped under and within the glaciers. Then as a gradual warming occurred, there would be occasional bursts of immense methane
pockets which would contribute to sudden, possibly even catastrophic global warming.

I think what we see are milokavich cycles. Earth’s orbit is not constant and become more elliptical. These cycles are evident in the image above.

I agree with you more than ever that it was a combination of massive volcanos going off and the release of methane on the ocean floor bed. Also I
don't believe people caused the increase of CO2 because of farming and animal husbandry. One big reason is the population of the planet (which is
estimated) shows that at 7,000 BCE the population may have been 7 million humans total. Even if every man and woman farmed (which you know damn good
and well they didn't), it wouldn't have added enough CO2 to the atmosphere to be noticable. In fact the things that would have been noticed is the
before mentioned volcanoes and other geographic causes, but not humans. If 7 million humans could do that much "damage" we should be venus by now
with close to 7 billion people on the planet.

Also I also believe that there are gaps in our history (either on purpose or by accident), and once we figure it out we will know that our
civilization of humanity was much more advanced than what we have been told.

Then 7,000 years ago—following the Neolithic Revolution's spread across Europe and Asia—atmospheric carbon went up instead of going down as was
expected from the established pattern

CARBON went UP.
------------------------------

if the glaciers were defrosting then there would be more land and soil for plants and trees to grow, which would mean CARBON/co2 would decrease.

More trees and plants equals less co2 and more oxygen3 to breathe.

although it is possible that the ice that was defrosting around the poles released carbon, i doubt it would release more co2 than the plants growing
in its space could photosynthesize.

it would release the co2 all at once and within 20-30 years the trees that bloosmed where the ice once was would counter act that.

i know that methane is 20-40 times worse for the ozone than co2, and cows produce much of the methane from todays problems. livestock could not have
done this back then as there were so few humans and even less beasts of burden.

Could a methane gas pocket have erupted, SURE but where is the evidence of a gas pocket erupting, that intervend and dissolved around the entire
world. surely if this happened on a global scale there would be evidence.

could the human farming of crops cause a noticeable change in co2 all the way back then, when we were just forming our first great civilizations?

i doubt it but i am just guessing. did we use the slash and burn techniques back then?

another NO becuase there was so much empty space why destroy a forest?

there was a meteoric impact in north america 7000-10000 years ago that most likely landing around where the great lakes are now, and most likely
shattered the ice, and increased the global warming that was already taking place due to the magnetic pole alignment.

the earth's magnetice poles flip every 100,000 years if i am not mistaken

i have not thought of a good explanation as of yet, but i am thinking and i love this topic

Originally posted by tooo many pills
i know that methane is 20-40 times worse for the ozone than co2, and cows produce much of the methane from todays problems. livestock could not have
done this back then as there were so few humans and even less beasts of burden.

the herds of bison in North America would have out numbered all the domestic cattle we have now by at least a factor of 10.

there was a meteoric impact in north america 7000-10000 years ago that most likely landing around where the great lakes are now, and most
likely shattered the ice, and increased the global warming that was already taking place due to the magnetic pole alignment.

The Younger Dryas impact event was about 12,900 years ago and wiped out the Clovis culture. en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting but why in the world is the Bible mixed in with this scientific information??

When the Bible was written "God" didn't even know that night and day are caused by the rotation of earth [Genesis 1:1-10], dinosaurs are not
mentioned in the Bible, evolution from generation to generation is not mentioned [provable in a Biology lab in a few days].

Science and the Bible DO NOT mix, period.

When I read the title of the thread I was excited to see what changes happened at that time! Thinking fire was more readily created or something like
that...

First of all,I want to say that I do not believe that historians are corrupted and trying to hide the truth from the people. I think they're just
doing their best to find the truth with what has been learnt to them as "plausible".
Now, back on the main topic. I assume something big happened at the time. There are many flaws in the original theory. First : why would our ancestors
burn entire forests, while these were the very places in which they could find their food (game, fruits and all). Second : why would they produce SO
MUCH food ? If hunting and gathering allowed them to survive, then they would only have needed small fields. Or is it something that caused a
population boom that forced them to grow crops ? And last but not least : a hunter-gatherer life's actually easier than a farmer's life. Let me
explain my point with an example :
Flood strikes and all crops are destroyed (or anything else that would have the same effect). The farmer is condemned to starve for a whole year
before getting a new harvest. The hunter gatherer only needs to go hunting gathering somewhere else. Also, if there is a bad harvest, the farmer will
be affraid for the winter. The hunter gatherer, having no fields to watch, moves south every year where the winter's warmer.

Also, hunters gatherers knew that the seed gave the plant which gave the fruit. They weren't that dumb.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.